Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
BIRENDRA KUMAR
Iqbal Singh – Appellant
Versus
Inderjeet Singh S/o Shri Gurudayal Singh – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by refusal of prayer to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The impugned order was passed on 27.8.2016 in Civil Suit No. 23/2014 brought by plaintiffs/respondent nos. 1 to 3 against the petitioner and proforma respondents. The challenge was/is on the ground that the plaintiffs have no real cause of action, rather illusionary cause of action is stated in the plaint and the plaint is hopelessly barred by limitation.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the plaintiffs/ respondents have brought the suit for specific performance of oral contract dated 30.4.1978 and the suit was filed on 2.11.2014. There is no acceptable explanation for such a delay. Moreover, it is frivolous to claim oral agreement to sale so old that many of the person present on the date of agreement already left the world.
3. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents contend that the parties were so closely related having strong faith on each other that the transaction took place on oral assurance that in future when it would be required, a sale deed would be executed.
4. The legal position is well settled, in the matter of consideration of prayer under
The court affirmed that a plaint cannot be rejected for lack of cause of action or limitation if no time limit for performance is specified, allowing oral agreements for immovable property.
The limitation for specific performance suits begins upon notice of refusal to perform, and the plaint must be assessed as a whole to determine if it discloses a valid cause of action.
The court established that the issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, necessitating a full trial to resolve, rather than dismissal at the application stage.
A unilateral cancellation of a registered agreement of sale is invalid; the cause of action based on subsequent knowledge and payments keeps the suit within limitation.
The court affirmed that a plaint must disclose a cause of action based solely on its averments, and issues of fraud can only be determined after evidence is presented.
The court must only consider the plaint and accompanying documents under Order 7 Rule 11, without evaluating the merits of the case or the defendant's defense.
The rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 requires strict adherence to conditions, and a claim disclosing some cause of action cannot be dismissed merely due to its perceived weakness.
A plaint cannot be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 when limitation depends on disputed facts, requiring a full trial to establish cause of action.
The limitation for cancellation suits begins from the time the plaintiff becomes aware of the grounds for cancellation, not from the date of the instrument's execution.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
